The point is probably to cause mayhem by corrupting the systems. It may be targeted, but it doesn't look nearly as targeted as Flame was. It sounds like they just want to cause wanton destruction and chaos by disrupting the target's computer systems, which in some cases is as effective as any subtle attack.
Holy water, et alia have no form of guaranteed effect or power whatsoever. None. Any religious-affiliated individual who makes such a claim should be reported to his/her superior, if they have one, and if they don't, should probably be ignored. A magic spell that "make your partner desire you with lust & pasion.only you . spell" 9sic] is, I would say, slightly more assuring of a definite effect. Which, given it won't work, is most likely the source of the problem for eBay. They don't care if you offer a blessed item that is simply "blessed", with no promise of some particular effect.
It's a race for dominance as the stupidest state in the nation.
Most stupid; 'stupidest' is not a word.
I'd say whichever state you received your education from is obviously a front runner in that race...
You sure about that? Absolutely, 100%? Well, then, looks like someone made the stupidest post of the day
Hint: when being pedantic about English, make sure the Oxford English dictionary doesn't contradict you. If it does, not only are you an ass for your pedantry, you also look like a stupid ass.
"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location."
Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me, I mean you are literally broadcasting who, where and what you are saying, all one need do is listen.
Talk about a non-story. It's not a real scandal like Obama eating dog or anything.
So, where are the publicly available devices capable of tracking this signal. I'm waiting for it, because I have a few senators, congressmen, and judges I think should be tracked 24/7. After all, they don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy, do they? And therefore they should be able to be tracked using the cell phone, right? Note: this isn't entirely a joke, I honestly think people should find a way to track lawmakers and judges if this decision doesn't get overturned. Obviously, the decision should be overturned, but if not, that would be a good way to insure a law protecting such information is enacted.
Of course people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that data. It isn't publicly available, and in fact the police had to request it from the cell phone company. Just because you can track someone using it quite easily does not mean they do not have an expectation of privacy.
when writers should be acknowledging that such meaningful (ie, passenger and cargo) flights will never happen.
"Never" encompasses a very long period of time, and should almost never be used in speaking about technology. I'm sure 250 years ago people would have also said it would never be possible to communicate with another person on the other side of the planet in real-time, and yet here we are.
It depends. These phenomenon might be peculiar to the isotope in question (chlorine 36), could be insignificant entirely, or could average out over a long period of time to the established rate in any case. Decay rates are not entirely constant in every particle, either: ionization can affect the decay rate significantly. I think we'll have to wait until further research to really know for sure the complete implications of this discovery, or indeed if it is even true.
I don't see why we should. I think they made it apparent in Star Trek that Giordi had a peculiar condition that made the fictional conventional cures for blindness impossible/unappealing..
Yeah, reversing the polarity of his eyes was probably an unappealing option.
We shouldn't be spending our money figuring out how to defeat poorly equipped enemies. The purpose of our military is to be able to defeat, or at least fight to a standstill, other militaries that may threaten our existence (in the future that likely means China). If we can handle China, we can handle anyone. Most importantly, if we can handle China, we won't have to.
Both the Soviet Union and the US thought the same thing. Both have had enormous difficulty in maintaining a hold over rag-tag mountain-guerrilla fighters and terrorists who consider horses a fast means of transport. That is a rather significant problem for a military to have: the inability to defeat ill-equipped foes, and frankly as a military's technology grows more advanced, it gets to be a bigger problem. An EMP weapon, for example, may be fantastic against enemies that rely on computers. But if you grow dependent on using EMP to win a battle, you might find yourself suffering a staggering defeat to someone who simply doesn't use a computer. It's a good thing (military wise) to avoid that sort of dependency.
Or military units that lack long-range missiles. The things are designed to fly at ~20,000 feet (6km), which for reference is the exact maximum range of the longest-range Stinger missile, so you could shoot it if it was exactly overhead (it won't be, though, thats the point). And that is well above the range of non-missile ordinance as well. In other words, it's designed to be used in situations were the military is fighting relatively poorly equipped enemies (i.e. enemies that don't have long-range SAMs) for a prolonged time in rough terrain. Or in other words, the last couple wars the US has been involved in.
On a side note, I find it amusing that some people complain about how advanced tech like the F-22 is unnecessary since no enemy is even close to a big enough threat to require something that advanced, and then other people complain when tech like this is made which would be useless against advanced enemies. Different enemies require different tools.
It's funny how everyone says they like the truth, openness, honesty, free speech--all that shit. Well, until someone dares actually exercise any of that stuff when it exposes THEM, of course. Then it's GODDAMN WAR!!
It kind of reminds me of the old crack my union friend used to make back in the day: "Ronald Reagan loves labor unions, as long as they're in Poland."
Wait, who are you talking about here? Because a DDoS attack is exactly how most Wikileaks supporters act against their perceived enemies, and I have to say, I think having the tables turned and have Wikileaks DDoSed in turn is, well, highly appropriate. Maybe now their supporters will learn that breaking the Internet in such a manner to make a point is not acceptable, from anyone.
Who am I kidding, they'll probably search for the source and launch a DDoS attack of their own. People never learn, and large mobs of anonymous people just amplify the stupidity.
The examiners can and will know what system the code was taken from, and can collect any parameters from that system that are needed.
No, they can't. They don't know what machines the payload code runs on, and if the target (as is very very likely) was a government system somewhere in the Arab world, they probably never will. In other words, they have no clue what the parameters are for decrypting the payload: if they did, they wouldn't need to issue this challenge, which BTW isn't a brute-force, it's more like a distributed dictionary attack (testing various parameters that might be the target). They found the malware with encrypted payload in the wild, but never in it's decrypted state.
Or hack the system and give your neighbors or other enemies lots of falsified positives so that the UN launches sanctions against them. A system like this would be more or less completely worthless, even assuming they could make the physical hardware accurate enough. Seismometers on a cell phone? Never mind, of course, that if there is a big enough sample for you to detect a bio-weapon, you will have a much bigger and more immediate problem to worry about than non-compliance with treaties. Specifically, the fact that you are probably already dead. Similarly with chemical weapons, although to a lesser degree.
Isn't the iCloud stuff (specifically, the device backups) also AES encrypted with a key Apple doesn't have? I will have to dig up the article, but I'm pretty sure I saw that.
If you bait them that's even worse. How is that not entrapment? Honestly it all depends on who the female officers are and whether or not they are a legitimate part of the hacker community. Do you really want some cops who hate the community to be in that role? Also I don't see how entrapment really does anything but get people arrested which is exactly what we shouldn't want.
It's not entrapment in nearly every way it is possible for it to not be entrapment.
First of all, sexual assault is a species of sexual harassment (so all sexual assault is sexual harassment, though the converse is not true). Secondly, TFA is talking about sexual harassment in general and only used the crotch-grabbing as an extreme example meant to get the point across.
Sexual assault (or battery, as I believe it is legally termed) is a sub-species of sexual harassment in general, the latter including both verbal and physical harassment while the latter only includes the physical part. Being one thing does not preclude it from also being another.
Low resolution thumbnail picture composite only, not full resolution, and they omitted the parts that show most of Curiosity itself (so not really full, as I would define it). For some reason I also thought it wasn't a 360-degree one, but on closer examination it looks like it is, and now that I look at the one linked in TFA, it also omits several parts of the image. There is a full color high-res image here (direct link [warning: the image is very large, over 11MB]: here), although it too has frames missing.
IANAL, but since it specifies "derivative works" as being covered, I think you could write your own implementations, especially if you included even a tiny snippet of the original code. Might have to license it under the same license, though (again, not a lawyer so I'm not sure)
They do have some color pictures already, just not a full panorama in color. See here. The Curiosity, unlike much space exploration stuff, actually has true-color cameras not just composite imaging or false-color cameras. The result looks... well, exactly like Nevada desert.
I'm pretty sure he's right that "Free to Play" is not the future of gaming. There's no indication so far that any game that costs nothing to play, but is monetized by the in-game purchases made by players will ever reach the kind of quality of experience of the best single-player games.
World of Tanks, while I haven't played it, is supposedly quite fun. There is also Dota 2 and League of Legends, both of which are quite high quality (Dota 2 looking better than any RTS I've ever seen before). LOTR Online went F2P and started making more money, as did Team Fortress 2.
F2P is not "the future", but it is "a" future. It is a perfectly valid and highly successful model, when done right. OTOH, of course, you have crap like FarmVille or Sim City Social, which are pure pay-to-win or aggravate-your-friends to win games. F2P only works in the long run if they are not pay-to-win, because that will simply drive off the "hard-core" gamers, who tend to have more money than time and are therefore not interested in seeing the reward they spend 100+ hours working towards gotten by others who have more disposable income in 20 seconds. Sure it works for Zynga, at least for now, but I very much doubt that will last very long. As soon as something else shiny comes along, people will move on.
The second assertion is not necessarily true, how do you know she is related to the graduate?
So, the assumption that the man holding the "diploma" is indeed a graduate goes unquestioned? Anyways, the problem with your example is that the picture is actually most probably (though of course not definitely) of a graduate with his proud father, mother, and bored sister. Since those assumptions are probable, they are perfectly reasonable and if not given further information, there is no reason to assume otherwise since those would, also, be further assumptions. Indeed, it would be unreasonable not to form assumptions about the situation in the picture, since that would be effectively denying yourself information about the most probable case. That is, indeed, why humans make those assumptions in the first place. Obviously, these are still assumptions, so they must be revised as soon as further evidence becomes known and therein lies the key problem: people refusing to revise their earlier assumptions, not the initial assumption itself.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is probably to cause mayhem by corrupting the systems. It may be targeted, but it doesn't look nearly as targeted as Flame was. It sounds like they just want to cause wanton destruction and chaos by disrupting the target's computer systems, which in some cases is as effective as any subtle attack.
Holy water, et alia have no form of guaranteed effect or power whatsoever. None. Any religious-affiliated individual who makes such a claim should be reported to his/her superior, if they have one, and if they don't, should probably be ignored. A magic spell that "make your partner desire you with lust & pasion.only you . spell" 9sic] is, I would say, slightly more assuring of a definite effect. Which, given it won't work, is most likely the source of the problem for eBay. They don't care if you offer a blessed item that is simply "blessed", with no promise of some particular effect.
I was assuming "Copyright © 2012Oxford University Press" complete with a link to their main website was a pretty good sign. Merriam Webster doesn't seem to generally list superlatives unless they are of an unusual form ("fast" for instance doesn't list "fastest"). Some other sources do exist, though, and I don't have access to a printed dictionary right now.
It's a race for dominance as the stupidest state in the nation.
Most stupid; 'stupidest' is not a word. I'd say whichever state you received your education from is obviously a front runner in that race...
You sure about that? Absolutely, 100%? Well, then, looks like someone made the stupidest post of the day
Hint: when being pedantic about English, make sure the Oxford English dictionary doesn't contradict you. If it does, not only are you an ass for your pedantry, you also look like a stupid ass.
And if you are interested in more raw images you can see them here: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=3 (link is to day 3 but you can see others as well).
"did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from his cell phone that showed its location."
Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me, I mean you are literally broadcasting who, where and what you are saying, all one need do is listen.
Talk about a non-story. It's not a real scandal like Obama eating dog or anything.
So, where are the publicly available devices capable of tracking this signal. I'm waiting for it, because I have a few senators, congressmen, and judges I think should be tracked 24/7. After all, they don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy, do they? And therefore they should be able to be tracked using the cell phone, right? Note: this isn't entirely a joke, I honestly think people should find a way to track lawmakers and judges if this decision doesn't get overturned. Obviously, the decision should be overturned, but if not, that would be a good way to insure a law protecting such information is enacted.
Of course people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that data. It isn't publicly available, and in fact the police had to request it from the cell phone company. Just because you can track someone using it quite easily does not mean they do not have an expectation of privacy.
when writers should be acknowledging that such meaningful (ie, passenger and cargo) flights will never happen.
"Never" encompasses a very long period of time, and should almost never be used in speaking about technology. I'm sure 250 years ago people would have also said it would never be possible to communicate with another person on the other side of the planet in real-time, and yet here we are.
It depends. These phenomenon might be peculiar to the isotope in question (chlorine 36), could be insignificant entirely, or could average out over a long period of time to the established rate in any case. Decay rates are not entirely constant in every particle, either: ionization can affect the decay rate significantly. I think we'll have to wait until further research to really know for sure the complete implications of this discovery, or indeed if it is even true.
I don't see why we should. I think they made it apparent in Star Trek that Giordi had a peculiar condition that made the fictional conventional cures for blindness impossible/unappealing..
Yeah, reversing the polarity of his eyes was probably an unappealing option.
We shouldn't be spending our money figuring out how to defeat poorly equipped enemies. The purpose of our military is to be able to defeat, or at least fight to a standstill, other militaries that may threaten our existence (in the future that likely means China). If we can handle China, we can handle anyone. Most importantly, if we can handle China, we won't have to.
Both the Soviet Union and the US thought the same thing. Both have had enormous difficulty in maintaining a hold over rag-tag mountain-guerrilla fighters and terrorists who consider horses a fast means of transport. That is a rather significant problem for a military to have: the inability to defeat ill-equipped foes, and frankly as a military's technology grows more advanced, it gets to be a bigger problem. An EMP weapon, for example, may be fantastic against enemies that rely on computers. But if you grow dependent on using EMP to win a battle, you might find yourself suffering a staggering defeat to someone who simply doesn't use a computer. It's a good thing (military wise) to avoid that sort of dependency.
Or military units that lack long-range missiles. The things are designed to fly at ~20,000 feet (6km), which for reference is the exact maximum range of the longest-range Stinger missile, so you could shoot it if it was exactly overhead (it won't be, though, thats the point). And that is well above the range of non-missile ordinance as well. In other words, it's designed to be used in situations were the military is fighting relatively poorly equipped enemies (i.e. enemies that don't have long-range SAMs) for a prolonged time in rough terrain. Or in other words, the last couple wars the US has been involved in.
On a side note, I find it amusing that some people complain about how advanced tech like the F-22 is unnecessary since no enemy is even close to a big enough threat to require something that advanced, and then other people complain when tech like this is made which would be useless against advanced enemies. Different enemies require different tools.
It's funny how everyone says they like the truth, openness, honesty, free speech--all that shit. Well, until someone dares actually exercise any of that stuff when it exposes THEM, of course. Then it's GODDAMN WAR!!
It kind of reminds me of the old crack my union friend used to make back in the day: "Ronald Reagan loves labor unions, as long as they're in Poland."
Wait, who are you talking about here? Because a DDoS attack is exactly how most Wikileaks supporters act against their perceived enemies, and I have to say, I think having the tables turned and have Wikileaks DDoSed in turn is, well, highly appropriate. Maybe now their supporters will learn that breaking the Internet in such a manner to make a point is not acceptable, from anyone.
Who am I kidding, they'll probably search for the source and launch a DDoS attack of their own. People never learn, and large mobs of anonymous people just amplify the stupidity.
I fail to see how religion enters into this.
Emacs vs vi.
The examiners can and will know what system the code was taken from, and can collect any parameters from that system that are needed.
No, they can't. They don't know what machines the payload code runs on, and if the target (as is very very likely) was a government system somewhere in the Arab world, they probably never will. In other words, they have no clue what the parameters are for decrypting the payload: if they did, they wouldn't need to issue this challenge, which BTW isn't a brute-force, it's more like a distributed dictionary attack (testing various parameters that might be the target). They found the malware with encrypted payload in the wild, but never in it's decrypted state.
Or hack the system and give your neighbors or other enemies lots of falsified positives so that the UN launches sanctions against them. A system like this would be more or less completely worthless, even assuming they could make the physical hardware accurate enough. Seismometers on a cell phone? Never mind, of course, that if there is a big enough sample for you to detect a bio-weapon, you will have a much bigger and more immediate problem to worry about than non-compliance with treaties. Specifically, the fact that you are probably already dead. Similarly with chemical weapons, although to a lesser degree.
Isn't the iCloud stuff (specifically, the device backups) also AES encrypted with a key Apple doesn't have? I will have to dig up the article, but I'm pretty sure I saw that.
No.
If you bait them that's even worse. How is that not entrapment? Honestly it all depends on who the female officers are and whether or not they are a legitimate part of the hacker community. Do you really want some cops who hate the community to be in that role? Also I don't see how entrapment really does anything but get people arrested which is exactly what we shouldn't want.
It's not entrapment in nearly every way it is possible for it to not be entrapment.
First of all, sexual assault is a species of sexual harassment (so all sexual assault is sexual harassment, though the converse is not true). Secondly, TFA is talking about sexual harassment in general and only used the crotch-grabbing as an extreme example meant to get the point across.
Sexual assault (or battery, as I believe it is legally termed) is a sub-species of sexual harassment in general, the latter including both verbal and physical harassment while the latter only includes the physical part. Being one thing does not preclude it from also being another.
Low resolution thumbnail picture composite only, not full resolution, and they omitted the parts that show most of Curiosity itself (so not really full, as I would define it). For some reason I also thought it wasn't a 360-degree one, but on closer examination it looks like it is, and now that I look at the one linked in TFA, it also omits several parts of the image. There is a full color high-res image here (direct link [warning: the image is very large, over 11MB]: here), although it too has frames missing.
IANAL, but since it specifies "derivative works" as being covered, I think you could write your own implementations, especially if you included even a tiny snippet of the original code. Might have to license it under the same license, though (again, not a lawyer so I'm not sure)
This would usually be the case, however the Curiosity does, in fact, carry several true color-capable cameras.
They do have some color pictures already, just not a full panorama in color. See here. The Curiosity, unlike much space exploration stuff, actually has true-color cameras not just composite imaging or false-color cameras. The result looks... well, exactly like Nevada desert.
I'm pretty sure he's right that "Free to Play" is not the future of gaming. There's no indication so far that any game that costs nothing to play, but is monetized by the in-game purchases made by players will ever reach the kind of quality of experience of the best single-player games.
World of Tanks, while I haven't played it, is supposedly quite fun. There is also Dota 2 and League of Legends, both of which are quite high quality (Dota 2 looking better than any RTS I've ever seen before). LOTR Online went F2P and started making more money, as did Team Fortress 2.
F2P is not "the future", but it is "a" future. It is a perfectly valid and highly successful model, when done right. OTOH, of course, you have crap like FarmVille or Sim City Social, which are pure pay-to-win or aggravate-your-friends to win games. F2P only works in the long run if they are not pay-to-win, because that will simply drive off the "hard-core" gamers, who tend to have more money than time and are therefore not interested in seeing the reward they spend 100+ hours working towards gotten by others who have more disposable income in 20 seconds. Sure it works for Zynga, at least for now, but I very much doubt that will last very long. As soon as something else shiny comes along, people will move on.
The second assertion is not necessarily true, how do you know she is related to the graduate?
So, the assumption that the man holding the "diploma" is indeed a graduate goes unquestioned? Anyways, the problem with your example is that the picture is actually most probably (though of course not definitely) of a graduate with his proud father, mother, and bored sister. Since those assumptions are probable, they are perfectly reasonable and if not given further information, there is no reason to assume otherwise since those would, also, be further assumptions. Indeed, it would be unreasonable not to form assumptions about the situation in the picture, since that would be effectively denying yourself information about the most probable case. That is, indeed, why humans make those assumptions in the first place. Obviously, these are still assumptions, so they must be revised as soon as further evidence becomes known and therein lies the key problem: people refusing to revise their earlier assumptions, not the initial assumption itself.